The Pens don't need MAF's $5m this summer, though there's a good chance they'll need it next summer. The obvious subtext here is that this is truly MAF's 'put up or pack up' season. Besides, what were you expecting Shero to say publicly? "MAF is garbage. Oh, by the way, any GM who's listening: please trade me something of value for him. kthx."

Bylsma's system could use more defensive discipline, but I don't think that's why they lost to the Bruins. Star players must finish their chances. Star players must not make colossally idiotic plays. Hell, in the case of Crosby, star players must show up. Had they scored during their stretches of domination in Game 1, that series would have transpired much differently.

I love this extension. And it makes me laugh that a number of people are so upset about it. Amazing how much blame a coach gets when his talent gets stonewalled on the ice. He could have put any line combo out there against the Bruins and it wouldn't have mattered. All of these armchair coaches on here are so sour now and it amuses me. I would imagine that these will be the same people who will be calling for Tomlin's head if the Steelers go without making the playoffs this year.

letsgoalpens wrote:Mikey, I enjoy your posts and usually agree with you but what you wrote here sounds like somebody who is trying to convince themself that this move is okay. If your GM needs to stabilize your coach because he has lost control by giving him another contract then something is wrong.

Thank you. And this was my expected outcome, more or less. It's not so much about stabilizing the coach, it's about organizational stabilization. The team is emotionally fragile (looking around at this message board, it seems it is contagious...), and like I said about the loose threads, you don't want this whole thing to come unraveled. The mid-1950's Red Wings are a good example of this under Jack Adams. I won't go on a long history lesson here, but the patchwork lacked a lot of backing. It was a lot of greenbacks, not a lot of gold. And the patchworked snowballed upon itself and the holes widened, the team became more and more discontent and honestly, the franchise didn't really recover for decades...(Detroit Dead Things). Gordie Howe played in the NHL from 1946-1971 and then again in 1979-80. He won four Cups, all between 1950 and 1955. Once Adams began to tinker, the Wings became unstable, the earth under their feet crumbled and then everyone fell into the center of the earth when so-called, anti-estabilishment ragamuffin Ted Lindsay was moved to Chicago.

Extreme example? Totally. But when you have a lot of star power and maybe don't have that strong core leadership (Gordie, like Sid, was more of a lead by example type...he was actually quite soft-spoken, still is, God bless him), too much boat rocking or even the sight of choppy seas ahead can cause widespread panic. Now, that's not to say that making a coaching move is impossible...not at all. It's ok to let go of a coach. Coaches are hired to be fired. But the organization clearly wasn't ready to move on from Bylsma, and honestly, he did some really good things during the regular season. The extension is just snipping a loose thread before its caught on a nail. It's symbolic, but its significance is not at all empty.

I'll re-state that I believe he's on a short leash heading into the 2013-14 season.

letsgoalpens wrote:If you are keeping players (like a Morrow) and potentially overpaying them or using them in a role they are not fit for in order to insulate the coaching staff something is wrong.

Well, that's unfair to create a negative out of neutral situation. "Potentially overpaying them" is making chicken salad out of chicken feathers. Well, not really, but I like saying that. Anyway...Ray Shero hasn't really been caught overpaying anyone, so I trust his decision making 100% as he has not lead us wrong to any significant degree over the course of his tenure.

I'm not sure that Morrow was stuffed into a role that he was unfit for either...please do elaborate. I thought he played pretty well in the playoffs and I wouldn't mind if he was brought back.

letsgoalpens wrote:I completely agree it is difficult to coach a team with as much talent as the penguins have (in terms of personality) but when the same things keep happeneing (defensive breakdowns, emotional meltdowns, general carelessness with the puck, etc...) the coach needs to be looked at. All of those things can be attributed to players playing for a coach who will not sit them or hold them accountable.

I don't disagree. And I also don't doubt that the coaching situation was "looked at", do you believe that it was not considered? I don't have my finger on the pulse of the coaching candidates out there, I know some better than others, but is there a coach out there that would be a definite upgrade on Bylsma for this team? People can throw out grass-is-always-greener names like John Tortorella and Dave Tippett, but are they really a fit? Tortorella's six goalie system on a team that has a limited amount of hockey sense and is quite injury prone probably doesn't fit our team, right? I mean, do you really expect 87 and 71 to go out there and look like Ryan Callahan? I think that's unrealistic, personally.

Dave Tippett's system relies more on NZ defense and there's an active role for a puck-playing goaltender in his greatest successes (Turco, Mike Smith)...we don't have that and it's very important to his system. We'd really have to change the angle of this roster. And we risk alienating 71 and 58 and call me what you will, but I don't want either of them to leave. Teams don't win without a #1 PMD...can't do it. Look at every dynasty, look at every great center's season: Beliveau's seasons don't happen without Harvey, Abel's don't happen without Kelly, Esposito's don't happen without Orr, Trottier's don't happen without Potvin, Gretzky's don't happen without Coffey, neither do Lemieux's, etc. etc. Not to say that the wheels would fall off of Gretzky if Coffey wasn't there, but he doesn't hit 200 points...ever. Not once, without Coffey. Underrated importance.

letsgoalpens wrote:If the idea of giving Bylsma a contract extension to give him a vote of confidence and set the tone for the players to follow or get out seems to contradict the idea of also giving him a short leash. You can't be all in on a coach while also being ready to oust him.

Key distinction: extension is tangible, short leash is hearsay. Most coaches are on some sort of leash of moderate or shorter length (see: Michel Therrien signs extension with Pittsburgh, gets canned).

letsgoalpens wrote:I am in favor of Bylsma being canned. I have been lulled by the regular season success but four years in a row losing to teams you should beat has simply been too much and I expect this year coming up to be the fifth year. The book is out on how to beat the Bylsma system. Defensive improvement during the regular season means nothing to me because it does not translate to the playoffs. As soon as the coaches on the other team neutralize the bylsma system the team panics because there is no alternative or backup plan. Instead, they all start to press and get out of position. Before you know it your team has just lost two games on home ice with the second game being a 6-1 blowout. In 365 days I would fully expect us to be in the same position but I would hope management has the foresight to make a different decision than they made today. Since 1993 there has not been a team primed to win a cup in Pittsburgh like this one has. They only had to come out of a pretty weak EC and had to beat the Blackhawks. Another missed opportunity (as was the case in 2010). I am honeslty dumbfounded the front office is choosing to keep a coach who was only able to succeed in the post season for one season five years ago. I expect more from Mario and Shero, I only wish they expected more from themselves and their coaching staff.

I agree that adjustments would have been nice against Boston. The rest of that is emotional preferences that I'm in no position to disagree with really, you're entitled to your thoughts and opinions as they are not at all unreasonable.

As always, I enjoy your thoughts. I think what will make this team come unravelled it the same song, same story. Can you imagine what might happen if this team finishes in the top of the conference but goes down early in the playoffs 2014? I just don't see how keeping Bylsma allows the players to have any confidence in their system or playing from behind. I think this is something that will not stablize the organization but will have many in the organization waiting for the inevitable. If the players were gripping their sticks too tight in the bruins series wait until the hit the inevitable slump in an 82 game season. A new coach, imo, would breathe new life into the organization and allow players to have a fresh outlook. I am not going to pretend I know 1% as much about hockey as Bylsma, Lemieux, or Shero. I don't. But watching the first ten minutes of the SCF game 1 has infuriated me. I saw a well structured, well prepared hawks team. I expect the hawks to win in five games.

I am sure the coaching situation was looked at. I just wonder how objectively it was looked at. I won't pretend to be objective either but I saw a team in the bruins series who ignored the system and tried to do things their own way after the system was not working. That leads me to one conclusion: the players did not believe in the Bylsma system to create scoring against a team that was well matched against them.

I got a good chuckle out of Tortorella's six goalie system. Part of the reason yours are one of the poster's whose posts I always make a point of reading. I really think a coach like Alain Vigneault would be a perfect fit for this team. I have less confidence in Tippett (who might not even be available) or Tortorella (who should be a sports radio talk show host) for this team. But I do think either of those coaches would be a better fit for this team in the short term than Bylsma. It really seems this team has lost confidence in his system come playoff time.

My problem with Morrow was that he was used everywhere from the second line to the fourth line and only had moderate success at each position for a brief period of time. He never knew his role. I would love Morrow to play on the third line and just let him stay there. But paying him as a second liner and using him where he was used seems like a waste. I thought he was one of handful of guys who seemed to bring the playoff intensity but was not played ENOUGH. But there never seemed to be any kind of plan for him, just let him throw the body around and see what happens seemed to be the plan.

Orlando Penguin wrote:I love this extension. And it makes me laugh that a number of people are so upset about it. Amazing how much blame a coach gets when his talent gets stonewalled on the ice. He could have put any line combo out there against the Bruins and it wouldn't have mattered. All of these armchair coaches on here are so sour now and it amuses me. I would imagine that these will be the same people who will be calling for Tomlin's head if the Steelers go without making the playoffs this year.

As I think about it more, the less upset I become with it. You don't win the cup every year. Just so long as the team can make it to the playoffs then let the cgips fall how they may. The first line used to be Lemieux Francis Jagr and those guys only have 2 cups to show for their efforts. So, whatever. Let's Go Pens.

Orlando Penguin wrote:I love this extension. And it makes me laugh that a number of people are so upset about it. Amazing how much blame a coach gets when his talent gets stonewalled on the ice. He could have put any line combo out there against the Bruins and it wouldn't have mattered. All of these armchair coaches on here are so sour now and it amuses me. I would imagine that these will be the same people who will be calling for Tomlin's head if the Steelers go without making the playoffs this year.

It makes me laugh that you can sit here and say what you just did and not look at the coach. So you are saying that regardless of personnel, we would have been stifled? Right? Sounds a lot like you our saying our system got figured out and Doofus Dan sat there sipping his water hoping if would somehow change. You just described the exact reason DB is a royal screwup in the playoffs.

I also love the "Therrien signed an extension and still got fired" shtick, really? what does that even mean? 2 totally different coaches from 2 different times with different personnel, why would management again want to sign a guy to an extension only to fire him a few months later and pay him to sit at home? they already said they hated doing that with Therrien. BYSLMA WILL NEVER BE FIRED. This was as close as possible where it could happen and it didn't, I can't wait to see the big Craig Adams 3 year extension coming up.

The Red Wings were the lower seeded team the last 4 seasons. The Pens have been the higher seeded team the last 4 years. Yes, it matters. Detroit took out a #2 seed this year before losing to the President's Trophy winner in 7. The last time they lost a series when they had the higher seed was 2009.

The Red Wings were the lower seeded team the last 4 seasons. The Pens have been the higher seeded team the last 4 years. Yes, it matters. Detroit took out a #2 seed this year before losing to the President's Trophy winner in 7. The last time they lost a series when they had the higher seed was 2009.

If winning in the regular season means nothing, then why should seed matter?

There's a double standard here somewhere. Too tired to try to think of it though. Just food for thought.

The Red Wings were the lower seeded team the last 4 seasons. The Pens have been the higher seeded team the last 4 years. Yes, it matters. Detroit took out a #2 seed this year before losing to the President's Trophy winner in 7. The last time they lost a series when they had the higher seed was 2009.

If winning in the regular season means nothing, then why should seed matter?

There's a double standard here somewhere. Too tired to try to think of it though. Just food for thought.

LOL... Bingo. When you compare Bylsma's record to his peers, he's top notch. The response?

"The regular season doesn't matter."

So, when you talk playoffs, you show that he's been better than Babcock and McLellen since he's been here. The response?

The Red Wings were the lower seeded team the last 4 seasons. The Pens have been the higher seeded team the last 4 years. Yes, it matters. Detroit took out a #2 seed this year before losing to the President's Trophy winner in 7. The last time they lost a series when they had the higher seed was 2009.

If winning in the regular season means nothing, then why should seed matter?

There's a double standard here somewhere. Too tired to try to think of it though. Just food for thought.

First, winning in the regular season means something because you have to win in the regular season to make the playoffs and it determines your seed. It's obviously not as important as winning in the postseason, but you have to win the regular season games first. Secondly, a higher seed equals a better team. Detroit hasn't lost to an inferior team in the playoffs in the last 4 years. No one's really noticed it because they wear the Red Wing sweater and get away with obstruction but they aren't the same powerhouse that they were. They've been trending downward. The Pens haven't beaten anyone better than a 5 seed in the last 4 years and that was back in 2010 even though they've had better teams than the team that won the Cup. They've been underachieving in the playoffs, and after 4 years Bylsma is one of the constants in all 4 seasons.

If you're going to compare Babcock and Bylsma, you need to recognize who it is they're beating and who is dumping them out of the playoffs.

The Red Wings were the lower seeded team the last 4 seasons. The Pens have been the higher seeded team the last 4 years. Yes, it matters. Detroit took out a #2 seed this year before losing to the President's Trophy winner in 7. The last time they lost a series when they had the higher seed was 2009.

If winning in the regular season means nothing, then why should seed matter?

There's a double standard here somewhere. Too tired to try to think of it though. Just food for thought.

LOL... Bingo. When you compare Bylsma's record to his peers, he's top notch. The response?

"The regular season doesn't matter."

So, when you talk playoffs, you show that he's been better than Babcock and McLellen since he's been here. The response?

"We were higher seeds."

It's all good comedy.

The regular season record doesn't matter because this team could get into the playoffs without any coach. The difference between the haves and the have nots in the east is night and day. The difference in the West is not. The seed matters because when the chips weren't down you showed you were a better team than the person you're playing. Explain to me how its a double standard.

Rocco wrote:First, winning in the regular season means something because you have to win in the regular season to make the playoffs and it determines your seed. It's obviously not as important as winning in the postseason, but you have to win the regular season games first. Secondly, a higher seed equals a better team. Detroit hasn't lost to an inferior team in the playoffs in the last 4 years. No one's really noticed it because they wear the Red Wing sweater and get away with obstruction but they aren't the same powerhouse that they were. They've been trending downward. The Pens haven't beaten anyone better than a 5 seed in the last 4 years and that was back in 2010 even though they've had better teams than the team that won the Cup. They've been underachieving in the playoffs, and after 4 years Bylsma is one of the constants in all 4 seasons.

If you're going to compare Babcock and Bylsma, you need to recognize who it is they're beating and who is dumping them out of the playoffs.

Rocco, if we had lost in the same fashion to teams that were seated higher than us, do you think people would still be calling for Bylsma's head? I'm not calling you out, just a question.

Idoit40fans wrote:The regular season record doesn't matter because this team could get into the playoffs without any coach. The difference between the haves and the have nots in the east is night and day. The difference in the West is not. The seed matters because when the chips weren't down you showed you were a better team than the person you're playing. Explain to me how its a double standard.

How you worded it isn't a double standard, because you are a reasonable, thoughtful poster.

The double standard comes in with those in this thread that complain how the regular season doesn't matter, and then also complain about how our position in the playoffs means everything.

The line from Shero saying that MAF got 40 wins in the regular season and he can't replace them I didn't like nor do I buy it. You go with Vokoun and a Bernier type for example, this team doesn't miss a beat. The franchise goalie cannot have colossal meltdowns in the post season and continue to be the franchise goalie.

Don't like the blind loyalty toward MAF at all...

Sometimes a change of scenery is needed...it's not the end of the world to admit that...

Last edited by KG on Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

KG wrote:The line from Shero saying that MAF got 40 wins in the regular season and he can't replace them I didn't like nor do I buy it. You go with Vokoun and a Bernier type for example, this team doesn't miss a beat. The franchise goalie cannot have colossal meltdowns in the post season and continue to be the franchise goalie.

Don't like the blind loyalty toward MAF at all...

Sometimes a change of scenery is needed...it's not the end of the world to admit that...

I disagree with standing behind Bylsma, but I can understand it. I do not understand that with Fleury at all. I didn't think he should be thrown under the bus or anything, but the 40 wins line made him look kind of dumb.